The first law of this nation is the Declaration of Independence. It outlines the relationship between government, and the People who are governed by “consent.” It note’s “that [we] are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights” as a principle of restricting bureaucratic intrusions and highlighting the fact that we are a nation of sovereigns who answer to a Higher Power.

It is declared in unique form for the entire world to be made aware “that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed”. It goes on to assert, “That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”.

The Declaration then details the many abuses of the government that the good People of the 13 Colonies were forced to endure, and therefore “declare the cause which impel[ed] them to the separation.”

Among the many causes, the delegates noted; “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.” This seems most notable to me when considering the current political landscape where rights have been converted into privilege by the vermin we continually re-elect, but even more important is the mindset of those who consider themselves to be patriotic.

There are few who stand up “with manly firmness” to tell our representatives that they have crossed the line. Instead we grovel, hope, and pray for a resolution in a game that our abusers have instituted for their own benefit.

We philosophize in great detail about how, what, when, and where. We speak circles around theories and events that may never occur, nor do we have the historical basis for those events.

We have allowed changes to the Constitution without a bona fide amendment process. We’ve allowed the meaning of the words to be interpreted away when it was understood that “In expounding the constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it.” – Holmes v. Jennison et al., 14 Pet. 540, 570-571, 614, 618 Appx.

We’ve allowed so many incursions into our rights and powers that we can no longer call this nation a functional Republic. It is exactly or might be considered far worse than what the Colonists endured.

How do we approach restoring the Republic without a violent revolution?

Before answering the question I’ve posed, I should express my doubts as to whether it is possible at this point to avoid bloodshed.

This nation was founded on a principle. It is a principle that seems to be impossible for almost every American to comprehend and embrace. That belief is stated in the Declaration as a government of the People that “deriv[es] its just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Let me expand on that a bit. We judge the Law, we “execute the Law”, and we enforce the Law. We do not sit on juries and rubber stamp statutes that infringe our rights. We do not allow for the creation of agencies that go beyond the scope of government’s limited authority. We do not allow government thugs to perform functions specifically enumerated to ourselves.

The Founders instituted a government that had little power to act without the People taking the specific steps or expressing the authority to resolve an issue. On a subject that I’ve almost beaten to death in my articles, the expressed authority “to execute the Laws of the Union” is in the hands of We the People. That is to say, “the whole people”, acting with the recognized authority in the institution that flows throughout the Constitutions, and both state and federal statutes. It has not been changed, nor can it be changed without re-writing literally hundreds of statutes, the constitutions of the states and federal government, and the admission that there has been an obvious violation of fundamental law.

On that subject, today, I will only say that if we are avoiding the return of power to the People in its constitutional forms, we are embracing the destruction of liberty, and more importantly, the inevitability of a bloody revolution. Stop claiming that you are opposed to bloodshed when you endorse it by the aversion of the People’s stated authority.

This nation has morphed into an oligarchy with a population of dreamers. One side dreams that they will destroy the other with lies and deceit. While they preach tolerance, they are the most intolerant people. Their motto seems to be that you can speak freely only if you agree with me.

The other side dreams that they can do the same thing over and over and obtain different results. An example of which is to go into a court that has consistently worked to violate most of our rights and expect it to turn around because it is the law.

What plagues us today troubled the colonists back then; men with no scruples, and those with swords to enforce the exploitation. How do we overcome?

This system is dependent on the voracity of the various components, which are executive, legislative, and judicial. Three branches, taught to us in school, that function to limit abuses by the other. This is all well and good, but it is not a legitimate diagram of our form of government.

There is the state, the People, and our jury system; it was pure beauty in its simplicity. The system has been corrupted, in main part by a branch with little oversight, and our willingness to do nothing but follow its often-illegitimate decrees.

The delegated authority of the courts was to function as a stop-gap to unlawful acts of any branch, agency, or bureaucracy that stepped on the law. However, what the Founders hoped for, and what transpired was not always one-in-the-same.

“The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.” – Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton

As with just about anything in this world there are flaws, and the biggest flaw in our Constitution was to give the courts complete independence. Given the nature of the animal it is inconceivable that no one saw the potential for the courts to thoroughly abuse the system.

In Anti-Federalist 80, Robert Yates wrote, “This government is a complete system, not only for making, but for executing laws. And the courts of law, which will be constituted by it, are not only to decide upon the constitution and the laws made in pursuance of it, but by officers subordinate to them to execute all their decisions. The real effect of this system of government, will therefore be brought home to the feelings of the people, through the medium of the judicial power. It is, moreover, of great importance, to examine with care the nature and extent of the judicial power, because those who are to be vested with it, are to be placed in a situation altogether unprecedented in a free country. They are to be rendered totally independent, both of the people and the legislature, both with respect to their offices and salaries. No errors they may commit can be corrected by any power above them, if any such power there be, nor can they be removed from office for making ever so many erroneous adjudications.”

Yates went on to write, “With a regard to the nature and extent of the judicial powers, I have to regret my want of capacity to give that full and minute explanation of them that the subject merits. To be able to do this, a man should be possessed of a degree of law knowledge far beyond what I pretend to. A number of hard words and technical phrases are used in this part of the system, about the meaning of which gentlemen learned in the law differ.

By Yates words alone, I am given to understand the distrust, even then, of both the judiciary and the legal professions as he goes on to write, “Its advocates know how to avail themselves of these phrases. In a number of instances, where objections are made to the powers given to the judicial, they give such an explanation to the technical terms as to avoid them.”

So, the question remains, how do we restore the Republic without a violent revolution?

First, and foremost, is that we admit to ourselves that we’ve allowed it to go beyond what is reasonable in order to avoid a disastrous confrontation.

Second, we must grasp the uniqueness of our form of government. It is not simply a Republic, but rather a nation of Sovereigns with the power of the Sword in the hands of the People. The Founders did not institute any democratic function. On that statement I will only note that you had the privilege to vote if you were a property owner, and that privilege extended to women, and blacks. No one had a right to vote. It was done so in that fashion as the Founders drew upon the well-established fact that given the choice, the public would vote largess for themselves, or more disturbingly a tyrannical form of government.

Third, we absolutely must stop feeding the very institutions that are working to dissolve our nation into what best benefits their greed. There are many organizations that work toward their own selfish, and demonstratively ignorant agendas.

Fourth, we must stop wishing, hoping, and sitting back in wait for something that didn’t occur as we have led ourselves to believe. The collapse of the Soviet Union is given as an example of a non-violent revolution. Sorry, but it didn’t happen that way. I will admit that it was fairly contained and held in check by several conditions that do not apply to the United States.

The nations that comprised the Soviet Union were essentially homogeneous. They did not hate their neighbors because of some privilege. The ire of the population was toward government officials, rather than a neighbor. The State mollified some of the angst by turning over property to anyone who took the time to go down to the bureau and fill out the paperwork. You were an instant property owner.

The non-violent India revolution is another fallacy that we depend upon to bolster our hopes. I’ve spoken to people who were in the Soviet Union, and India at the relevant times. They saw it as much different than we have been led to believe.

What is more likely to happen here is what took place when Pakistan split from India. Those people who were Indian were forced out of their homes. They could not take their valuables. For the most part they left with the clothes on their backs. To this day, I’ve witnessed the hatred between those two cultures.

Fundamentally, we cannot depend on philosophies to change the current course. There has been too much valuable time wasted while a “deep state” has distorted all function of life.

We do not have a legitimate jury system. The likelihood that those who enter a jury pool understand their function is almost nonexistent. In fact, in some states you face criminal charges if you apply your lawful role.

We do not have a legitimate enforcement tool, one that has the wherewithal to recognize that “qualified immunity”, and “compelling interest” are direct violations of the rule of law. Those fictions were created by judicial fiat in order to protect ‘officials’ who violated the oath of office in some fashion.

To put it simply, we’ve permitted a complete mess of our unique form of government. We have allowed the Republic to degenerate into a democracy. We speak as if we understand the rule of law, but in practice, simply contribute to the propaganda, and destruction of the system. Either we “execute the Laws of the Union” as they are established in the general rule of limited authority, or we fail. It’s as simple as that.

You can talk all you want about how the government works as a corporation instead of a Republic. You can talk all you want about how we need to change this, or that, but truth be told, if you don’t understand the rule of Popular Sovereignty you’re simply spitting into the wind.

This is a system wherein the State may not prosecute the Sovereign. Trials are dependent on one Sovereign claiming a misdeed perpetrated by another. The State prosecutes for unconstitutional acts because we allow it. We allow it because the clear majority are pathetically ignorant of our “rule of law.”

The function of law in this nation was to prevent the creation of another form of tyranny. We sat back and watched the tyranny develop. Now we are hoping for something that has only happened in our imagination.

I post this lament to all those who hope for a peaceful transition. In order for the rule of law to exist as it was Declared at the outset, we must “execute the Laws of the Union” as it was established. This nation cannot exist in its original form without the commitment of the good People to perform their responsibility to the freedom, and liberty that the Founders bequeath.

Can we have a peaceful change? Yes.

Can we have a peaceful change in our current state of mind? No.

As long as we keep fooling ourselves into accepting abuses that we’ve allowed, plot impotent solutions, disparage OUR law, and ignore OUR clearly stated duties, it will be impossible to Restore the Republic in a peaceful fashion.

Wikipedia will tell you that the book “A Racial Program for the 20th Century” (1912) is another anti-Semitic hoax. It says the book and author Israel Cohen didn’t exist.

The reason for this lie? This book contains a famous passage that reveals the Illuminati-Communist race strategy, later applied to women and other minorities in the guise of “feminism” and “diversity”:

“We must realize that our party’s most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.”

Rep. Thomas Abernathy read this passage into the Congressional Record on June 7, 1957 (Vol. 103, p. 8559, top of page.) Wikipedia tells you Abernathy read the quotation in a Letter to the Editor of the “Washington Star,” and the newspaper subsequently determined it was a hoax and apologized. “The quotation has retained some popularity among racists and anti-Semites to this day,” Wikipedia chortles <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ A_Racial_Program_for_the_Twentieth_Century>.

I have subsequently added this line to the Wiki entry: “However, the author fits the description of Israel Cohen (1879-1961) a prolific Zionist author who wrote the Foreword to Israel Zangwill’s ‘The Schnorrer’ as well as 30 other books. Like many purported ‘hoaxes,’ the quotations does describe events as they subsequently unfolded and the operations of the US Communist Party.” (http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php? Article=FinalWarn04)

“International” Jews, like other globalists, serve the Rothschilds’ sick megalomaniac program of world government dictatorship. “National” Jews, like other patriots, owe their first loyalty to their country and fellow citizens. Like Benjamin Freedman <http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm>, Myron Fagan <http://100777.com/myron>(1887-1972) was one of the latter, a courageous American who fought the bankers’ Communist agenda for the greater part of his life.

Myron Fagan, a successful Broadway playwright and director, met Israel Cohen, Israel Zangwill and George Bernard Shaw at a party to celebrate the opening of Zangwill’s play “The Melting Pot” in 1910. He knew the three men to be founders of the Fabian Society. Cohen told Fagan he was planning to write “A Racial Program for the 20th Century” as a “humanitarian” follow up to “The Melting Pot.” At the time, Fagan didn’t realize that the play, which described how Jews and Blacks triumph against White prejudice, was pure propaganda, part of the Communist campaign of fostering “guilt” in white Liberals described above.

It all fell into place in 1957 when Fagan read the “Washington Star” quotation in the context of the debate over school desegregation. In 1966, he recalled:

“That book was published in 1913 … the NAACP and the ADL were created [by the bankers] almost simultaneously to carry out those directives. That was more than a half-century ago. Can there be any doubt that that was intended to launch our present Negro upheaval for a Black Revolution?

“If that isn’t enough evidence, in 1935, the Communist Party’s ‘Workers Library Publishers’ issued a pamphlet entitled ‘THE NEGROES IN A SOVIET AMERICA.’ It urged the Negroes to rise up, especially in the South, and form a Soviet State in the South, and apply for admission into the Soviet Union … it contained implicit assurance that the ‘revolt’ would be supported by all American Reds, and on page 38 it promised that a Soviet government would confer greater benefits on Negroes than on Whites and that ‘Any act of discrimination or prejudice against a Negro will become a crime under the Revolutionary law …

” … When Abernathy published that Israel Cohen excerpt in the Congressional Record, we (Cinema Educational Guild, Inc.) promptly issued a ‘News-Bulletin’ in which we published the entire story — and warned of the coming Negro uprisings…

“Two years went by and nobody even tried to deny the matter, but, suddenly, after two years, during which the ADL and similar groups had ferreted out ALL copies of the book and destroyed them, they announced that the whole thing was a fraud, that there never had been such a book, or an ‘Israel Cohen’ … Why did they wait two years? And how could they deny the existence of a writer named Israel Cohen in the face of all the books he had written? Copies of which I have. More important, bear in mind that Israel Cohen had been a prime mover in all ‘Fabian Socialist’ and Communist movements in England — also that I had met him in person when he actually discussed the book at that banquet.”

(Fagan, “UN is Spawn of the Illuminati,” <http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/Inter-88.htm>1966)

IMPLICATIONS

Communism and Zionism are Rothschild proxies: two pincers in the banker’s plan for world government dictatorship, currently masquerading as “globalization.”

Through Communism and Zionism, the Rothschilds duped many Jews into advancing their demented plan to enslave humanity. Happily the majority of Jews are not duped. They are either indifferent or opposed to world government and war.

The promotion of women and minorities is part of an agenda to undermine the European heterosexual Christian character of Western society. So is mass immigration and interracial marriage. Most of what passes for modern culture (TV, movies, literature, punditry etc.) and politics are propaganda and social engineering. For example, opprobrium for “sexism” and “racism” are actually designed to undermine gender and race.

“Guilt” is a huge weapon for them. Women were taught they were “oppressed “for centuries by virtue of having to raise their children while men performed hard labor and died in battle. Similarly the Illuminati have used guilt to give their Zionist and Communist agents immunity. The charge of “anti-Semitism” is a canard designed to disarm opposition to an evil and all pervasive occult power that holds mankind in its thrall.

Another “hoax” –the “Protocols of Zion” states “We shall erase from the memory of men all facts of previous centuries which are undesirable to us, and leave only those which depict all the errors of the government of the goyim.” (16-4) We’ll never know how many other books the bankers suppressed like /”A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century.”

CONCLUSION

I believe people should be promoted on the basis of merit, not race or gender. But let’s not pretend the bankers really care about women, homosexuals or minorities. As the above quotation implies, they are just a means to an end.

Western society has been subverted by a satanic cult, Kabalistic Freemasonry, led by the central bankers. (Zionism and Communism are both branches of Freemasonry.) Their pyramid and Eye of Horus are on the US dollar and on corporate logos everywhere. To reach the top, you must literally serve the devil (or his disciples.) After instigating 9-11, they are using the “war on terror” as a pretext to erect a police state.

On June 12, the Irish people temporarily stalled the advance of world government tyranny. Nevertheless, a Satanic Dispensation –the New World Order–has risen in our midst. We must find new ways to expose and resist it.

The pages of history are filled with blood, massacre, and genocide. Battles where the soil was stained red to mark the savagery of men towards other men.

In the battle of Teutoburg Forrest, it is estimated that Three Roman Legions lost as many as 20,000 men.

Here on our own soil, casualties at the Battle of Gettysburg alone exceeded 50,000 men.

Military deaths for WWII are estimated at over 25,000,000 men.

Those were wars, and soldiers die in war. They attack, they defend, they invade while bullets and bombs whiz above them, around them, and through them. They risk life and limb for what often turns out to be a lie. It has been a part of who we are for eons.

Too many of us ignore the darker side of humanity’s character. There is something within some of us that spurs hatred so deep, and disturbing that we’re willing to exterminate our fellow man. Men, women, children, old, and invalid are not spared. The oppressed run in fear, and hide in terror. They watch as their loved ones are carted off to some horror. Children are ripped from their parents while mothers and fathers watch helpless, and tormented.

The number of those slaughtered for some inexplicable reason can’t be reconciled. While the world seems to be content with a number around 60,000,000 in the Twentieth Century the count has been revised upward several times. As records are examined, the genocide under Mao Zedong alone is somewhere around 90,000,000. Stalin is reported to be responsible for the murder of 20,000,000, but as a former KGB once told me, the number is more likely over 30,000,000.

Those people were starved, tortured, and murdered in some of the most hideous of fashions. Christian Armenian women were stripped naked, and crucified as an example of the extreme cruelty one sect can carry out against another. It is estimated that the Turks exterminated as much as Sixty Percentof the Armenians.

Adolph Hitler is credited with saying, “Who now speaks of the Armenians”. Whether he made such a statement or not is irrelevant. Someone thought it, and others grasped the idea that we do not remember as we should the record of the past.

If you’ve looked for the pictures of the crucified Armenian women, or researched the quote by Hitler, I want you to keep the images, and thoughts in your head as you read what I’ve written here.

The genocide of the Twentieth Century, in which more than 250,000,000 people were slaughtered, should be foremost in our minds when we open any discussion on government, and the relationship between it, and the people it governs.

Government is a fiction that is run by people who have the same fears, aspirations, and sins as you and me. They are not infallible because they’ve been elected to a position, or hired to fill some bureaucracy. They often lie, cheat, and steal from the very people whose rights they were elected, or appointed to protect.

Those in government often abuse their power, and cause more harm than good. Some are power hungry megalomaniacs with no conscience at all. Some hate those they serve with a passion that is beyond comprehension. Because of their hatred, they create atrocities such as the Killing Fields of Cambodia. In far too many cases the depravity knows no end.

Tens of Millions of helpless women, children, sick, and elderly have been slaughtered over the years at the hands of someone with the authority of government to back their heinous crimes.

In Las Vegas, Nevada, there was a mass shooting, in which fifty-eight people were killed, and five hundred plus wounded. The details of the event are sketchy, and of course we the common folk are not allowed to know all the details. We’re only given a view from a mile away, and never allowed to know the whole truth. At best, we will be given conflicting information.

In the wake of this tragedy, the calls have once again come out to disarm the public. Ban “assault weapons”, limit magazine capacity, and the ultimate insult to those who authored our founding documents, remove the Second Amendment.

Throughout history, the common man has generally been defenseless against whatever madman who fired up the troops and set off to rape, pillage, and plunder. Today, collateral damage is used as a means of mollifying the horror imposed on the innocent.

Disarmament of the public has been the general rule. The aristocracy would not allow for the chance that the people of the country could posses enough arms to throw off the yoke of tyranny. The obvious, and foremost action was, and still is, to maintain a docile, and impotent populace.

The pages of history are filled with massacres of innocents, primarily at the hands of some bellicose body acting under the direction of someone claiming the authority of a government official.

However, in America, our Forefathers who were students of both history, and the character of men, incorporated what they saw as an important aspect of “a free state” that would allow We the People to stop an encroaching tyranny. “The Militia of the several States,” as it is clearly stated in the text of the Constitution was not placed there to turn-a-phrase, or add insignificant banter to our rule of law. It was placed there because those who fought the Revolution saw first hand the acts of a tyrant, but more importantly they were keenly aware of the lessons of history.

Where is the Militia today? It lies dormant, and incompatible with a nation of ignorant, ambivalent people whose only ties to what happened in the past has been programmed by sound bites, and history text that is doctored to suit the agenda of those who seek unlimited power.

You need only look as far as the mirror to understand the problems we face today.

We are a society led by our lack of knowledge, fueled by prejudice, and nurtured by ambivalence. We function by knee jerk reactions, and following the crowd that knows only what their told to think. The clear majority has no regard for the rule of law, or the history that brought us to this point in time. They are, as Vladimir Lenin called them, “useful idiots”.

In Vegas, a child was murdered. In fact, fifty-eight children were murdered. They may have been a mother, or a father, but they were none-the-less the children of someone. The act, with what we’ve been allowed to know, was that of a madman. Suffering, and grieving will sweep the nation. There must be something done of substance that will prevent such tragedy, and maintain “a free state”, but not by “sheep”.

In 1902 the Congress passed “An Act To promote the efficiency of the militia, and for other purposes.” For those who’ve never actually read the act, nor the history and development of the militia, the act did two things:
1. It revitalized the Militia statutes that were essentially moribund.

2. It allowed the states to “keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,” under Article 1, Section 10, Cls. 3.

Why was the Dick Act necessary? The States had failed in their responsibility under Article 1, Section 8, Cls. 15&16 to maintain a Militia.

During the Civil War, and the Spanish American War it was apparent that able-bodied men were no longer “well regulated”. That is to say, those who should be ready for war, trained to arms, and organized were woefully unprepared. Congress attempted to revitalize the militia, and establish a military unit that the States could call upon, a voluntary unit, to fill the void.

While militia was compulsory, the states were not enforcing the statutes, and as it is today, the people had no intention of putting themselves on the front line. They would much rather pass it along to someone willing to step up, and perform the duty that all should embrace, but refuse to accept.

Well America, we are in crisis mode. I don’t care what nonsense you believe, or propaganda you consume. This nation is on the verge of critical mass because We the People do nothing more than follow along like lambs to slaughter.

What needs to be done is for the American people to stand up now, and demand that every legislator, executive, and justice abide their oath of office. We must also demand a clean slate from those, who’ve destroyed our system, to come forward and admit their crimes against humanity.

There is a problem with my wishes. It is We the People, for which government exists, and acts. So, it is our duty to reign in the terror created by decades of buffoons who’ve come close to totally destroying family, community, and culture. We have allowed for every wild scheme to take hold, and ruin millions of lives. Instead of demanding that the myriad of laws created by this constantly encroaching government stop, we ask for more punishment.

What happened in Las Vegas, like so many other events will be cloaked in secrecy, and mystery.

Instead of looking for motives, lets look for the facts. Account for the hundreds of spent brass cases that should have been on the floor of room 135 on the 32nd floor. Let’s have full disclosure of the trajectory of the gunshots. There were more than 500 shot. There will be a true story told by the wounds. Let’s hear all the testimony from people like Rocky Palermo. Give us all the gruesome details so that We the People can make the proper call as to what took place.

Congress, the ignorant, and the media are all over gun control instead of the facts. Why aren’t we asking for full disclosure? Are those who want to disarm their fellow citizens so foolish to think that a government that spits on the rule of law will maintain “a free state”?

Look in the mirror so that you can remember your face as you sold your country down the drain. Remember that look so when your children, or grandchildren ask you why, you can recount the errors.

The lessons of history, the repeated lies, the dismantling of our fundamental law, and a constant barrage of propaganda should have put a wary person on guard. Instead, we took the road that was fed to us despite all the signs, and all the deceit.

What would I do if I were in the position as the person directing the NRA?

Where would I start?

What goals would I set?

What confessions would I make to, not only the membership, but also the entire country?

Would I be bold enough, and brave enough to set the record straight on the organization I have the opportunity to direct?

Would I receive the backing of the board, and the Five Million members?

I am not in the position of Wayne LaPierre so I must go at this a different way knowing full well that people in his position are more likely to dismiss my thoughts, and just go on about the business of keeping the gun control issue on the table. My goal would be to wake the membership, and others of course, to the true nature of the Second Amendment.

My first task will be to remind the members of the NRA that Fifteen Years before the ratification of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson penned what is considered the seminal document on the relationship between the People and the governments they form to “secure” their “unalienable Rights.” The document that recognizes our God given rights, and among those is the individual right to keep and bear arms.

My second task, and this should be the object of all so-called supporters, would be to read, and study these words until they sink in; “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

For One-Hundred Fifty years prior to the Declaration, militia were organized, armed, and trained. They were generally Able-Bodied men between the ages of 17 to 45 bearing the arms that a regular soldier would carry, and maintaining the equipment, including artillery, that an army would employ in battle.

The militia was not voluntary. It was not comprised of individuals pretending to be soldiers, but rather organized by state statute compelling all to serve in a fashion, with duties, and armament prescribed. They trained much the same as our reserves do today, and performed the all-important tasks of protecting the Colony, and enforcing the law.

Most importantly, while a significant part of government, they were not obliged to obey commands they thought unlawful, and dangerous to liberty. Thank you Captain John Parker and your Minute Men for clarifying.

The Founders, those people who had first hand experience with the institution, explained it in this manner “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people.” – George Mason. “Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped.”- Alexander Hamilton. “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry.

At that point I would have to pose the question to not only the board, but also the entire membership as to whether they have done even a modicum of research on the body that the Founders declared to have the authority “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”? – See Article 1, Section 8, Cls. 15

Correcting the fallacy seems a daunting task based on years of misinformation, and indoctrination, but as we look out upon our current political landscape, what options do we have to change the course?

Those of us who understand the foundations laid in the Declaration of Independence “That *** Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” have both the right and the duty “to alter or to abolish” the institution when it runs afoul of our rule of law are often labeled as “conspiracy theorists”, or nuts. How do you overcome what appears to be a very potent form of mind control that has the general public questioning that, which is right, but abiding that, which is wrong?

So how do you turn a potential powerhouse such as the NRA into a true force for truth, and freedom?

To answer my own question, I’ll start with a letter to each and every member of the board of directors. I will also contact Wayne LaPierre, Pete Brownell, Chris Cox, and Dana Loesch.

Since I am no longer a member of the NRA, one reason being that I’ve seen them deliberately assist in the passing of anti-2nd amendment legislation, I’ll have to start my campaign to restructure the group by asking for the help of those who recognize that there is something really amiss in the organization.

The membership must speak up if they have not already completely succumbed to the propaganda both those who are anti-2nd, and those who claim to be pro-2nd have fostered for decades.

I might start with a letter of the following nature.

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am a former member of the NRA, an American Eagle plank holder, and a firm supporter of all Twenty-Seven words of the Second Amendment.

You can ask why I am a former member, but the fact that in the eyes of the men who authored both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution I understand “the whole people” to posses the power and authority “to execute the Laws of the Union” should suffice. However, if it is not clear then allow me to explain further.

My understanding of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the first Thirteen words of the Second, including “necessary”, is significantly different from yours. The law can only be understood in the way that “would be most likely to fulfill the intentions of those who framed the Constitution.”– See Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213, 332.

I can abide no theories of later day jurists who seek to undermine our Fundamental Law to support their own political agenda by “build[ing] magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases —or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text.” – Silveria v Lockyer, Ninth Circuit, Justice Alex Kozinski, dissenting.

I certainly cannot be tolerant of those who ignore “the theory of our institutions of government, [and] the principles upon which they are supposed to rest” in order to profit from decades of lies, propaganda, and agenda’s that are destroying this nation.

I am distressed, to say the least, that an organization the size of the NRA does not have the wherewithal, the man-power, the intelligence, or honesty to support and abide the defined power of the People acting as the only constitutionally recognized authority“necessary to the security of a free State”.

“[T]he whole people”, as noted by George Mason, is the backbone of freedom. It is the force that protects OUR juries from judicial error, and zealous prosecutors. It is the force that guarantees proper redress of grievance. It is the “bright line” for the proper use of force by “We the People”.

The Founders of this nation who “pledged to each other [their] Lives, [] Fortunes, and [] sacred Honor” deserve more than rhetoric, compromise, and backroom deals. They deserve the truth to be passed from generation to generation in order to secure liberty.

The Second Amendment contains Twenty-Seven words, not just the last Fourteen. The men who authored those words understood that they were building the foundation for a nation of free and Sovereign People. They knew that while delegating limited authority to government, the true power must remain in the hands of the People. The only way for their posterity to remain free was the open exercise of all powers including the authority “to execute the Laws of the Union”.

How can anyone with one scintilla of honesty ignore the principles upon which this nation is supposed to function and exist?

Regards,

Nicholas Testaccio

I’ve signed my name because I truly believe in the Second Amendment as the Founders intended. What they practiced, and utilized was considerably different from today’s interpretation. I say interpretation because with One Hundred Fifty years at its back, with state statutes to define its implementation, there is no way to see militia in the light it is portrayed today.

“The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to *** prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American *** the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Cox, PA Gazette, 1788

“The constitution ought to secure a genuine militia and guard against a select militia. *** all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community ought to be avoided.” – Richard Henry Lee

The Founders had a clear picture of what the Militia was, and should never be. It should never be “select militia” such as National Guard. It should be nothing other than “the whole people” in service to their community and country. It should be a lawful Constitutional body “reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia.” – See Article 1, Section 8, Cls. 16

It is disturbing enough to see the law as it is clearly stated being dismantled by those who sit in positions of delegated authority, but it is downright disheartening to see those who should realize the significance of “A well regulated Militia” helping to diminish the power of the People with legal arguments that ignore the intended purpose of having arms in the hands of trained, Able-Bodied Men. To have those who pretend to be patriots and pro-2nd advocates find any excuse they can to deny the good People their proper role in Militia is beyond tolerable.

What the individual rights proponents fail to see is right in front of them. Walking into a court and expecting a corrupt judiciary to render honest constitutional decisions is outright madness. Accepting edicts such as “bright lines”, “compelling interests”, and not knowing the difference between a right and a privilege is tantamount to colluding with the enemies of freedom.

There are opponents of an armed citizenry that control the legislatures, and the courts. For some reason, pro-2nd groups ignore this aspect of the fight.

“The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment,” ***. “Therefore, because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry — including a requirement of ‘good cause,’ however defined — is necessarily allowed by the Amendment.” – See Peruta V California, Ninth Circuit

The Peruta decision rests heavily on what was written in the Heller decision. In Heller in a slim 5-4 decision, Justice Scalia wrote, “How far it is in the power of the legislature to regulate this right, we shall not undertake to say, as happily there has been very little occasion to discuss that subject by the courts.” – See District of Columbia v Heller (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d370

Regulate a right? For those who have little understanding of rights, and privileges, you cannot regulate a right, but you can regulate a privilege. I warned, just 15 minutes after the Heller decision was published that this would become poignant to those opposed to an armed citizenry. Regulate a right? Really?

We now have an entire population who cannot “bear Arms” as was practiced, and intended by incorporating Militia into the Constitution. In actuality, we have no lawful Militia in this nation “necessary to the security of a free State.”

Militia is there to prevent mischief, corruption, and of course tyranny. It is there as a lawful authority to procure indictments, and arrest those who violate their oath to the Constitution.

It is not a last line of defense, but rather was intended as the first line to protect the interests of the good People from “A [government] whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant”.

Need I say more than I’ve decided to send this entire article to the NRA, and wait with bated breath for an honest reply? If any at all will come.